# Perceptions about USA from non-Americans that Americans might be surprised to learn **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 13, 2015, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918 "2015-05-13T06:28:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/381 "2015-05-21T13:52:27Z")
> [@WotNot](#): > > “… that was never a British war aim.” Is how I have to assume you were intending to finish that sentence. 😉 There is some evidence that having the American colonies come to their senses and rejoin the Empire they rightfully belonged to was a real hope, fondly cherished by some influential people in Whitehall. It was never well fleshed out as either a political or military strategy, of course. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/382 "2015-05-21T14:01:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > There is some evidence that having the American colonies come to their senses and rejoin the Empire they rightfully belonged to was a real hope, fondly cherished by some influential people in Whitehall. It was never well fleshed out as either a political or military strategy, of course. I have considered what history would have been like without an American revolution. Would Hitler have even considered attacking Great Britain with the wealth and muscle of North America behind it? I think that there would have been no Westward expansion. Napoleon would not have sold the Louisiana Purchase to Britain, and if it were captured in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain would have been more protective of the Indians that to allow settlement willy nilly. There may not have been war with Spain to capture the area that became some of the Western states. But I digress. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/383 "2015-05-21T16:30:13Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Eight Frigates is an interesting book on the US Navy during the war. Apparently if the British had moved enough ships to blockade the USA, they couldn’t properly blockade France, which really wanted to invade Ireland or England. Barbara Tuchman’s _The First Salute_ points out that Britain’s strategy in the Revolutionary War (and she would probably include the War of 1812 as well) was always formulated with an eye towards France. It’s a good read, and demonstrates the extent to which the British primarily considered the American war as one aspect of their global struggle against the French. For that matter, the _casus belli_ of the War of 1812 was American trade with France. As much as it might hurt our pride, we were always a sidelight to the Brits. That’s why they always sent in the B team. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/384 "2015-05-21T17:33:31Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > It costs both nations a lot of money in trade, and it was generally agreed that the war was a bad idea. The Brits stopped the practice of boarding any American ship they felt like, taking whoever they felt like and either enslaving them (for all intents & purposes) or torturing them to death by calling them “deserters”\*. True, this wasn’t part of the treaty, \*but they did stop. \* (Yes, they Royal Navy no longer needed as many men, but many Captains boarded US ships because they thought they had a right to do it, and they wanted to find any deserters.) They also stopped supporting the Indians, which allowed for peace. It allowed the USA to grab Florida. (wiki)\*Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida… To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom.[223] \* also: \*The nation also gained a psychological sense of complete independence as people celebrated their “second war of independence”.[215] Nationalism soared after the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. The opposition Federalist Party collapsed, and the Era of Good Feelings ensued.[216] No longer questioning the need for a strong Navy, the U.S. built three new 74-gun ships of the line and two new 44-gun frigates shortly after the end of the war\* - for all intents and purpose, “flogging around the fleet” _was_ torturing a man to death, even tho a few survived for a while after. [Naval Ceremonies, Customs, and Traditions - Royal W. Connell, William P. Mack - Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?id=wvKiBiWKrzMC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=%22flogging+around+the+fleet%22&source=bl&ots=slW9Jq73Ur&sig=Xg-PdBj4Zd_yXF_6d8bRfUH1-b4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ehVeVZHlCqzHsQS6_oCQDA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22flogging%20around%20the%20fleet%22&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/385 "2015-05-21T17:49:17Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > True, this wasn’t part of the treaty, \*but they did stop. \* (Yes, they Royal Navy no longer needed as many men, but many Captains boarded US ships because they thought they had a right to do it, and they wanted to find any deserters.) They did find deserters that way. Some were willing to claim that anyone they needed had run from the RN, though. > [@DrDeth](#): > > It allowed the USA to grab Florida. (wiki)\*Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida… To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom.[223] > \* How so? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/386 "2015-05-21T17:58:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Having the capital fall and the White House burned is a pretty good sign of taking a pretty good licking. Wasnt much there, then. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/387 "2015-05-21T18:03:47Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > They did find deserters that way. Some were willing to claim that anyone they needed had run from the RN, though. > > How so? True, some really were deserters. But taking anyone you _think_ is a deserter, giving them a drumhead trial and then executing them in a variety of horrible ways- wasnt really the right way to go about it. The USA didnt have a chance to defend it’s citizens or to have a hearing about extradition. Some men were convicted based on their tattoos. A_fter the decisive defeat of the Creek Indians at the battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, some warriors escaped to join the Seminoles in Florida. The remaining Creek chiefs signed away about half their lands, comprising 23,000,000 acres, covering much of southern Georgia and two thirds of modern Alabama. The Creeks were now separated from any future help from the Spanish in Florida, or from the Choctaw and Chickasaw to the west. During the war the United States seized Mobile, Alabama, which was a strategic location providing oceanic outlet to the cotton lands to the north. Gen. Jackson invaded Florida in 1818, demonstrating to Spain that could no longer control that territory with a small force. Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819. Pratt concludes:_ ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/388 "2015-05-21T18:06:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The remaining Creek chiefs signed away about half their lands, comprising 23,000,000 acres, covering much of southern Georgia and two thirds of modern Alabama. The Creeks were now separated from any future help from the Spanish in Florida, or from the Choctaw and Chickasaw to the west. During the war the United States seized Mobile, Alabama, which was a strategic location providing oceanic outlet to the cotton lands to the north. Gen. Jackson invaded Florida in 1818, demonstrating to Spain that could no longer control that territory with a small force. Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819. Pratt concludes:\* Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/389 "2015-05-21T18:43:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Brits stopped the practice of boarding any American ship they felt like, taking whoever they felt like and either enslaving them (for all intents & purposes) or torturing them to death by calling them “deserters”\*. True, this wasn’t part of the treaty, \*but they did stop. \* (Yes, they Royal Navy no longer needed as many men, but many Captains boarded US ships because they thought they had a right to do it, and they wanted to find any deserters.) … you left out the bit about how this stopped before the war really got started. It’s a trifle difficult to argue that this was a successful outcome of the war! Of course it was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. Why should it have been? It was irrelevant by that time. > [@](#): > > They also stopped supporting the Indians, which allowed for peace. Not so. In fact, the notion that the Brits were busy stirring up the Indians to attack America was a fabrication. In reality, the Brits were attempting to damp down the anger of Indians caused by the Americans attacking them. In short, it was not “British support” that was the impediment to peace. It is true that the Americans gained significant advantages over the Indians. The Indians in what is now the US clearly “lost” the war. In other respects, so did the US: this was not a war that the British wanted - to them it was a purely defensive war, and they succeeded in that defence. > [@](#): > > It allowed the USA to grab Florida. (wiki)\*Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida… To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom.[223] > \* Too remote. One could equally well thank the Brits for the Louisiana Purchase. > [@](#): > > also: > \*The nation also gained a psychological sense of complete independence as people celebrated their “second war of independence”.[215] Nationalism soared after the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. The opposition Federalist Party collapsed, and the Era of Good Feelings ensued.[216] > > No longer questioning the need for a strong Navy, the U.S. built three new 74-gun ships of the line and two new 44-gun frigates shortly after the end of the war\* If we are counting purely psychological factors, then the War of 1812 was clearly a Canadian victory. It cemented Canadian nationalism, which before that had hardly existed. The Straight Dope article put it best, in quoting a historian: > [@](#): > > Judging the results of the war against each party’s war aims, he concludes that “the biggest winner was Canada; then came Great Britain; and then the Indians living in Canada. The biggest losers were the Indians living in the United States; after them came the United States, which … for the first time in its history lost a war.” ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/390 "2015-05-21T18:47:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > SWMBO did her junior year of college abroad in Germany. She’s refused to drink American beer since then. American beer is loaded with preservatives to extend shelf life and they adversely affect the flavor. German beer, by law, can contain only “Barley, Hops and Water”, and apparently this law goes back hundreds of years. She says the difference is like drinking vintage wine vs. vinegar. That’s a good plan if you never want to drink the best bet on the world. I tend to find German lagers to be very good, but American ales and stouts are the best anywhere, imo. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/391 "2015-05-21T18:58:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of course it was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. Why should it have been? It was irrelevant by that time. The Americans didn’t bring it up in case the treaty would be rejected, and the British were ready to concede it if need be. One usually doesn’t go about impressing enemy sailors. > [@Malthus](#): > > Too remote. One could equally well thank the Brits for the Louisiana Purchase. > > Isn’t that why Napoleon needed the money? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/392 "2015-05-21T19:06:46Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The Americans didn’t bring it up in case the treaty would be rejected, and the British were ready to concede it if need be. > One usually doesn’t go about impressing enemy sailors. It didn’t need to be conceded (or brought up), because the Brits weren’t in fact doing it anymore. They had stopped, not because of the US, but because of events in the _real_ war. Moreover, it had stopped before the War of 1812 really got underway. The notion that the US “won” because they “achieved their aims” loses sight of the reality that their “aims” would have been “achieved” just as well if they had … done nothing. The “achievement” was not causally connected to the War of 1812, but with the War with Napoleon. > [@](#): > > Isn’t that why Napoleon needed the money? Yup. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/393 "2015-05-21T20:08:33Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > 1.1. The OS was updated in 1865. Major fix was the slavery bug. That was more of a Service Upgrade. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/394 "2015-05-21T20:26:46Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > … you left out the bit about how this stopped before the war really got started. It’s a trifle difficult to argue that this was a successful outcome of the war! > > Of course it was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. Why should it have been? It was irrelevant by that time. > **[Impressment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#Conflict_with_the_United_States)** > > Impressment, colloquially "the press" or the "press gang", nowadays referred as the busification, is a type of conscription of men into a military force, especially a naval force, via intimidation and physical coercion, conducted by an organized group (hence "gang"). European navies of several nations used impressment by various means. The large size of the British Royal Navy in the Age of Sail meant impressment was most commonly associated with Great Britain and Ireland. It was used by the Ro... \*During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. …British impressment ended, in practice but not law after 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars \* So, The War of 1812 ended during the same year Impressment stopped.\* Of course,\* Impressment of US sailors stopped the second USA declared war, since they’d just be POWs, but some POW’s were executed for being deserters. But even tho the Royal navy no longer needed men for the Napoleonic wars, many RN captains were zealous in boarding ships to reclaim _deserters_. The end of the Napoleonic Wars didnt stop this, but the fact that it was both illegal and that the USA would fight to stop it ended it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/395 "2015-05-21T20:42:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [Impressment - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#Conflict_with_the_United_States) > \*During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. …British impressment ended, in practice but not law after 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars \* > > So, The War of 1812 ended during the same year Impressment stopped.\* Of course,\* Impressment of US sailors stopped the second USA declared war, since they’d just be POWs, but some POW’s were executed for being deserters. > > But even tho the Royal navy no longer needed men for the Napoleonic wars, many RN captains were zealous in boarding ships to reclaim _deserters_. The end of the Napoleonic Wars didnt stop this, but the fact that it was both illegal and that the USA would fight to stop it ended it. Your own cite, that you quoted to support your position, supports mine: what ended “impressment” was the real war - the one with Napoleon - not the American side-show. From your quote: > [@](#): > > British impressment ended, in practice but not law after 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars So far, there has been no evidence that impressment ended (in practice) because of the War of 1812 (which lasted until 1815), and not because the British beat Nappy, and so no longer needed impressment at all. The notion that it was “illegal” is bit of an anachronism, there being little in the way of binding international law at the time. It wasn’t “illegal” under British law - as again, you quote confirms. The issue that actually lead to war, though, was the blockade, not impressment. According to President Madison himself, if he’d known the Blockade had ended before the war begain, he’d not have declared it. From the Straight Dope article: > [@](#): > > The whole sorry mess might have been avoided if intercontinental communications had been faster. The British scrapped their blockade system by mid-June of 1812; Madison said that if he’d known, he wouldn’t have declared war. The obvious conclusion from this is that Madison would not have gone to war over impressment alone. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/396 "2015-05-21T20:59:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Your own cite, that you quoted to support your position, supports mine: what ended “impressment” was the real war - the one with Napoleon - not the American side-show. What ended impressment was the **end** _of the real war - the one with Napoleon_ . Which ended in 181 **5** , not 181 **2**. You claim the practice ended\* before\* 1812. The RN would have happily gone on taking US Seamen until 1815, had not the US declared war. And, after that, occasional captains and Admirals would have gone ahead and boarded and attacked US Navy vessels when they thought there were _deserters_ on board. After all, it’s their right as the biggest fucking navy in the world, isnt it? :rolleyes: Even the Brits didnt think it was actually _legal_ to enter another nations territorial waters and take men at gunpoint. Sure, they thought that Naturalized Americans were still British citizens, but that didnt give them the legal right to attack US vessels in US waters. That was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/397 "2015-05-22T14:38:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What ended impressment was the **end** _of the real war - the one with Napoleon_ . Which ended in 181 **5** , not 181 **2**. You claim the practice ended\* before\* 1812. > > The RN would have happily gone on taking US Seamen until 1815, had not the US declared war. And, after that, occasional captains and Admirals would have gone ahead and boarded and attacked US Navy vessels when they thought there were _deserters_ on board. After all, it’s their right as the biggest fucking navy in the world, isnt it? :rolleyes: > > Even the Brits didnt think it was actually _legal_ to enter another nations territorial waters and take men at gunpoint. Sure, they thought that Naturalized Americans were still British citizens, but that didnt give them the legal right to attack US vessels in US waters. That was illegal. What ended in 1812 was not impressment, by the blockade system. Which, as the cites provided demonstrates, was the real ‘cause’ of the war, from the US perspective - at least as far as Madison was concerned. There is no proof provided so far that the US declaring war had anything to do with the RN giving up impressment, rather than (say) the fact that the RN no longer needed impressment. As for “legality”, this is an anachronism. “Illegal” according to what law? “International law” at the time basically amounted to treaties that were actually honoured. The notion that there may exist a positive “international law” binding on states that actually had an existance aside from treaties - particularly in the middle of a major war - was basically one that was bandied about by philosophers, not something that actually, you know, existed. > **[History of international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_public_international_law)** > > The history of international law examines the evolution and development of public international law in both state practice and conceptual understanding. Modern international law developed out of Renaissance Europe and is strongly entwined with the development of western political organisation at that time. The development of European notions of sovereignty and nation states would necessitate the development of methods for interstate relations and standards of behaviour, and these would lay the ... As for treaties, your link has this to say: > [@](#): > > In 1795, the Jay Treaty went into effect, addressing many issues left unresolved after the American Revolution, and averting a renewed conflict. However, the treaty’s neglect to address British impressment of sailors from American ships and ports became a major cause of complaint among those who disapproved of it. While non-British subjects were not impressed, Britain did not recognize naturalised American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still “British” — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens. The Jay Treaty simply neglected to address impressment, so the “law” actually on point (namely, the treaty) by implication, allowed the Brits to impress from US ships. That treaty lasted 10 years. The replacement was signed specifically to address impressment - but the Brits made no concessions and the Americans refused to ratify it. > [@](#): > > For the Americans, the goal of the treaty was to make the British abandon the practice of impressing sailors from American ships, as well as to address the neutral trading rights of American vessels in the ongoing Napoleonic Wars, among other commercial concerns. However, the British were short of manpower for the Royal Navy and believed that many British deserters were serving on American ships. In the desperate war against Napoleon, the British believed that they could not afford to abandon impressment: offending the Americans was seen as a much lesser evil than losing to Napoleon. Therefore, no concessions on the issue of impressment were made. > > The negotiations were begun on 27 August 1806, and the treaty was signed on 31 December 1806. President Jefferson received the treaty in March 1807, but was disappointed and refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification. This failure to resolve differences over the issue of impressment and neutral trading rights contributed to the coming of the War of 1812. > **[Monroe–Pinkney Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe%E2%80%93Pinkney_Treaty)** > > The Monroe–Pinkney Treaty was a treaty drawn up in 1806 by diplomats of the United States and United Kingdom to renew the 1795 Jay Treaty. As it was rejected by President Thomas Jefferson, it never took effect. The treaty was negotiated by the minister to Britain, James Monroe, and his associate, William Pinkney, on behalf of the Jefferson administration and by Lord Holland and Lord Auckland on behalf of the Ministry of All the Talents, a government that was headed by Lord Grenville. > For the A... So I ask again - what “law” were the Brits breaking? It wasn’t a treaty (as none existed that prohibited the practice) and it wasn’t binding general international law (which did not yet exist). ---
**Author:** ![JustinC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justinc/32/8083_2.png) [@JustinC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustinC)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918/398 "2015-05-22T14:59:24Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > If you wish to be very polite, you may wish to express your rejection in the form of an acceptance: > “Great! I’d love to visit. I won’t be able to do that now due to health issues. Thank you so much.” > > My mother (Illinois / South Carolina) taught me that this was the only correct way to respond to wedding invitations, but I don’t think she meant it was inapplicable for other occasions. That’s a good idea, and would’ve actually been true on that occasion. > [@Bad\_News\_Baboon](#): > > I am from Texas, so maybe I can answer. When was this invitation? Was it, for example, in June or Febuary? Was it a specific date (next week) or not (come visit sometime in the general future)? > The reason I ask is because a lot of people (Americans included) seem to think Texas is a heat inferno all year. It’s not. In fact, it’s been really nice out (but getting warmer). > Even visiting in the summer is not bad - we have modern facilities such as air conditioning… Even in ranches. So, without knowing the specifics, maybe it just sounded like a “no, I don’t want to visit” and using the weather as an excuse? I can understand someone not wanting to visit in August if they were coming to do outdoor sport, but not declining a short visit in March due to “heat”. > > I find that in this day, people in general, think of Texas as being like a western TV show, even if they know it’s not correct. I’ve had people visit my home in DFW marvel at how green it is, that we have many trees, etc. Additionally, they know we’re a big state but don’t realize exactly how big. No, you can’t just pop over to Austin - that’s at least 3 hours away (closer to 4 with traffic). I think it was the summer, and they were on their 50th wedding anniversary trip. The invite was immediate (or the next day or two). They like everything planned so dad doesn’t have to climb stairs or walk too far as he has mobility (and breathing) problems, and living in the UK they aren’t too familiar with hot weather! He could’ve been more tactful but he was probably jetlagged/tired/embarrassed and put his foot in it. It wasn’t a big deal, they still had a great holiday in the States and a cruise in the Caribbean, but it was a shame as it’s probably the only time they could’ve experienced American hospitality on a Texas ranch. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/perceptions-about-usa-from-non-americans-that-americans-might-be-surprised-to-learn/719918.md?page=19)